tv [untitled] May 20, 2012 1:30am-2:00am PDT
>> the parties have reached a resolution and they're going to ask the board to adopt a settlement. president garcia: we will deal with that and take a break. >> laurie herraiz, subject to 395 arkansas street also known as 1566 19th street. a permit to alter a building to complete internal remodeling and adding new windows, expand existing deck. the matter was heard on april 11 and was continued to allow staff to review the plans and allow time for the permit holder to submit revised plans. we will hear from the agent now. i believe the appellant was not able to make the meeting, but she sent a letter that you should have received.
>> hello. thanks for having us back. i'm tehe architect, quickly becoming the lawyer. this is the letter, i think, her the letter that everyone has in front of them. regarding the revisions, these are the bay window and the height of the roof. there are several additional items with discussions with the neighbors. it was added that there would be an exterior light at the corner
that is the portion of the bay window that projects out over the street. and there would be opaque glass or frosted glass. a few scope modifications that were technical parts of the matter where we just had to modify the drawing to show some additional coscope. that is included in the drawings we have done. so the letter is essentially referring to this document, and that document is a list of scope changes. and an additional letter that says the same things and that he is an agreement with those changes. there is one document that you
don't have in front of you, that is the drawings. i have a set of drawings here that show revisions. i won't go through all of these, but i can if you would like. i can put one out in front of you so that you get the idea. this is a sample of what we have done with the drawings were we have revised some of the scope and the documents, any changes we have made to the bay window or the roof is also highlighted -- and back to the modifications itemized on this
list. i think that is its. . here we are. >> can i ask you for the date of those revised plans? is there a date on them? >> the date is incorrect. i will have to have a talk with somebody. the date would be essentially today. the other thing is, in terms of process, we need to go back through and assuming that the appeal was granted and we have the special conditions permit that reflects these changes, we need to update the structural drawings. we want to make sure that everything went through. we need adjustments for these drawings and we understand that they need to be resubmitted anyways. we're hoping that would be
acceptable. >> we can hear from the department if there is any comment. no? ok. president garcia: is the building department clear on this list? >> good evening. i went through the site on monday and have a walk-through, which went over what it means to do -- needs to do. there is a dbi penalty that is not assessed yet, but we can do that for purposes of paying the penalty for exceeding the scope of the permit. they got ahead of themselves. i think he knows what the dbi want. he is prepared to do that.
>> is there public comment on this item? >> my name is drew, i'm a neighbor. i wanted to ask a follow-up question related to the mechanism to file a future complaint should they not follow th plan -- the plan. we are taking a bit of a leap of faith. that we are just curious what the process is going forward, if they did the wrong path -- get on the wrong path again, is there a way to throw the flag? >> the building department can address that for you. do you want to address that now?
>> yes, you're right, commissioner fung. if there are problems going forward with regard to exceed the scope of the permit, just call dbi and fil e a complaint. we will send an inspector to go over that. i doubt that will happen based on what we have been through. call us if you see any problems. commissioner fung: the documents will be the basis of the current scope and the design. >> exactly. it should not be any more than what they are approved to do. >> to clarify, what gets documented is what has been included and the material submitted to the board? director goldstein: my recommendation to the board is going to be to modify, if they
choose to, the term that based on the plans that mr. b andaroaron just presented. >> perfect. we appreciate your help. director goldstein: is there any other public comment? commissioners? your call. there needs to be a motion. >> i move to accept the recommendation. >> is that on the basis that the parties have reached an agreement? >> yes. director goldstein: that would be a motion to grant the appeal and modify the permit according to conditions stated in may 16, letters have been submitted to the board, design modifications and scope modifications.
director goldstein: will you call the roll? >> the motion is to grant this appeal, and pulled the permit with the following modifications -- uphold the permit with the following modifications. and as represented in the revised plans being submitted to us today. are you dating them today? dated may 16, 2012 as well. director goldstein: and based on the parties' mutual agreement. >> on that motion to uphold with all those conditions on that basis -- commissioner fung: aye. president garcia: aye. commissioner hillis: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. >> thank you.
the vote is 5-0. the permit is up held with those modifications and the revised plan. president garcia: i notice that there is someone here with the baby. is that >> welcome back to the may 16 meeting curia we are calling i'm prudent -- item number six. maria, 270 montana street. construction work done without a permit. application 6814. ruan hear from the appellate. please step forward. you will have seven minutes.
>> you have to pull the microphone down to yourself. >> good evening. my name is maria cartagena and i am here for the resolution about my appeal. >> did you have any comments to make about the penalty? >> yes, because i have to pay nine times for the violation. i have to pay nine times. if you can remove the penalty for me. >> y de want us to reduce the penalty? -- why do you want us to reduce
the penalty? >> when i bought the house, it had a bathroom downstairs. this is the reason i bought it because we live up and down. this happened because my kids laughed -- left and i rent the apartment downstairs. i do not have any idea. >> you save this worked happen before you bought the house? >> yes. >> anything else? thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners, the department received a complaint on the 10th
of january 2011. mold is on clothing. we issued a notice of violation from housing inspection. then we have the first notice of violation, some correspondence with the owner, then we issued a second notice because we had been asking for a permit to be applied for. that did not happen. eventually we did have a permit application in 2012. that permit got issued and there was a nine times penalty. we are asking that the cat on
the permit because of the notice of violation. we would respect any changes from the board but we would ask it be kept. >> and do we know whether or not the fact that to be a first was not abated had anything to do with a language barrier? >> i do not know anything about that. any more questions? >> ms. cartagena, you have any -- one moment. is there public comment? please step forward. >> you have to pull the microphone. cause i
am worried about the money. i had no idea you had to pay a lot of money for the permit. i got into an accident. my kids before my mortgage. this is the reason i cannot do that. i cannot fix anything that year. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy? commissioner, the matter is submitted. >> can i ask one more question of mr. duffy? were you able to see the unit? and you have a sense of when it was constructed?
>> i do not see that on the notice of violation. they said when they were when -- when they went they saw this illegal units. i did notice from the property profile that the owner -- >> it is conceivable it was not there. >> she said when she bought it, thinking her family was going to move in downstairs. when they moved out, they rented it out. it probably was there before she got it sure it -- bought it. >> the penalty is $2,000. and my looking at the right information? -- am i looking at the right information? >> it is nine times on the
value. i believe that was -- i have that here. it should say a penalty fee. >> that is nine times what? >> based on the building code, the nine times penalty. if you came into a permit for $25,000, you would multiplied duffy by nine times. -- multiplyin the fee by nine times. it is to remove the legal kitchen, the cooking facilities, and legalize the rooms for habitation.
she would have to hire an architect. shall have to show that on the plains. -- she will have to show that on the plans. >> in cases where the owner has purchased a property where work was done prior to ownership, what is your ruling on that normally? >> the department's or mine? i will give you the department. in the san francisco building code, if you brought in documentation that you did not do the work, there was an allowance. that has been taken out of our c be in the code that you could get a break if you prove you did not to the work and you did not own the property. it is not in our code anymore. the department would say you
would have to pay the penalty and bring it to the port -- board of appeals to get it repealed. the director made that change. >> i can guess what your personal and -- >> 0 little more compassionate. >> it is either nine times or two times. >> mr. duffy, for the next time, the surcharges, are they fixed? or a function of the total amount? or is that fixed regardless what the penalty is? >> i do not know the answer to that question. surcharges are part of every permit. are you asking if the surcharge is part of -- because of the penalty? >> if the amount is greater, is a fixed amount? >> i would imagine it goes by
the value of the work. >> not the board of appeals a surcharge. >> i understand that. >> in just clarifying. >> i could research and get back to you. there is a detailed, there are a lot of surcharges now. tc, school boards. they aren't part and parcel of building permits. -- are part and parcel of building permits. >> commissioners, the matter is yours. >> i accepted the explanation, the fear of the process and the
accident she was involved in and i would move to reduce the penalty to the minimum we can, two times. >> that is a motion to grant the appeal and reduced the penalty? that would require four votes. >> on that motion from commissioner fung to to reduce the penalty to two times the regular fee. president garcia: aye. vice president hwang: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. >> the appeal is granted. the penalty is reduced. >> we will call the next item.
david cincotta at 1858 greene street protesting the issuance on march 15, 2012 to alter a building. work approved under the application 880493 two. to renew expired permit for final inspection. this is on for a hearing today. we will start with the appellant, mr. cincotta. you have seven minutes. >> hello, my name is david cincotta. i am here on behalf of the family. as i mentioned in my brief, i will not try to cover everything, but he bought the property at 1864 in 1868.
this was for his entire family to live, at three of his daughters. the first thing i want to say is that i am only going to talk about this permits and the safety issues with regard to this permit. i am not going to talk about another lawsuit. it is true that they did file a lawsuit against my client. this case has nothing to do with this one. nothing that happens in that case will affect that permit. they are totally unrelated. the only issue i am here talking about is safety issues. because i am not in the practice of filing spurious appeals, before i file this appeal i contacted the building inspection and talk to the inspector to find out what was going to happen with this permit. a conversation i had was not reassuring.
it was his understanding that the work had already been done back in 1988 and they were going to come out and walk around it determined the work had been done and sign it off. that was not reassuring because, as i said, my client has a great -- put in a great deal of money and time to put in his family. we were concerned about that. earlier i had a conversation with mr. duffy which gave me more comfort because he explained the level of detail that may be required. i believed we would need to be focused on what has to be done with this permit that is now 25 years old. i want to also make it clear this is not about permit issues
with regard to co-matter is that do not apply to the safety issues -- code matters that do not apply to the safety issues. there is a raving that does not have the proper spacing but it is only unsafe to the lees. i do not care. they can do with it. that is not why i am here. the second issue is the matters that have already been determined to be safe. i even mentioned that it looks like the sprinkler issue that was raised was eventually signed off. i am also not concerned about the illegal window that is there now. it was not done appropriately but what to the window does,
we're saying that the fact it was not done properly, it did not have the required documentation, is evidence of why the work was not inspected. we have a job card that shows a number of things were never inspected. we are concerned with final inspections for fire, mechanical, electrical, and seismic. those are the things that would impact my client. we are concerned that the department makes an inspection of those things. we understand that the code was not done properly back in 1988. if it was not done, we would like it to be brought to the current codes which mr. duffy assures me what happened.
-- would happen. i do not want to get into all of the other things, the large package received from the lee's attorney. i know the reputation of the contractor and the architects, i consider a friend. but in my communications and the information i received, nobody was responsible for making sure it was signed off. one explanation i got was this happened around the time of the earthquake. things were confusing. who knows what was signed off on. we feel this should properly be signed off. there is always the argument that the department is going to do this anyway. why have the appeal? i look at it the other way.
if the apartment is going to do this -- department is going to do this, why don't we give the added focus this board can give it an emphasize this building -- and emphasize this building has to be inspected. i am asking that this board adopted the permit that will say they will do with a thorough inspection of mechanical, electrical, seismic, and fire safety hazards. i am available to answer your questions. i think that is all. i do not want to keep you later than i have to. >> what would you have, what process would you have them go through? through? >> i am asking for an inspection